-72 votes

Obama Hasn't Killed Anyone

What's with the stuff about how many kids Obama has killed? Is he a drone pilot now?

"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names."

Obama's not a murderer, not of children or anyone else. Place the stigma and the responsibility on the individuals committing the acts, and you will see change like never before.

Insulate and pardon them by blaming the King and you will merely get a new King.

Over and out.

EDIT: This edit comes after 38 downvotes and countless comments.

To be clear:

1) This was NOT a defense of Obama, in any way shape or form.

2) When I say Obama hasn't killed anyone, or that he is not a murderer, I do NOT mean it in a legal sense. I mean it in a literal sense; i.e. he did not commit the act personally.

3) If Obama did not commit the actual act, someone else must have. I propose that the literal term "murderer" should be applied to the person who committed the act. This does NOT mean Obama should not be held LEGALLY accountable. I merely propose that labels should be attributed with care. In a literal sense, Obama is the director of murder; or solicitor; or any equivalent thereto. Again, that's LITERAL sense, NOT LEGAL sense.

4) I think this is important because otherwise, the actual act itself is effectively pardoned when the murders are viewed collectively as Obama's, and Obama's alone. This has the effect of subsidizing the act of murder, since the label "murderer" is not attributed properly to the person committing the act.

5) One more time- when I talk about who has murdered, I mean it in a literal sense! Not a legal sense!

6) One more time- I am not defending Obama for his complicity in these murders!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

.

I liked your post and got it entirely.

"Place the stigma and the responsibility on the individuals committing the acts, and you will see change like never before."
That is the constitutional answer.

If nothing else, Nuremberg taught us, "I was just following orders" is NO DEFENSE!

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Thank you!

Thank you!

It's true,

as you said, "the actual act itself is effectively pardoned when the murders are viewed collectively as Obama's, and Obama's alone. This has the effect of subsidizing the act of murder, since the label "murderer" is not attributed properly to the person committing the act."

And you said,
"I propose that the literal term "murderer" should be applied to the person who committed the act. This does NOT mean Obama should not be held LEGALLY accountable. I merely propose that labels should be attributed with care."

In the vein that 'labels should be attributed with care', I suggest that we name NAMES, but not of the underlings who commited the murders. We need to name the names of 'those who have been put in charge of carrying out the agenda of the elite', those who are acting for Obama; those who gave the actual orders to kill.

Because, as skippy d says, below, "Problem is, they allow recruiters to go to schools and hype how great the benefits are to a bunch of kids that have been brainwashed into thinking that they MUST go to college to be able to make a living. They tell them how they can go to school for free, how great it is to serve your country, how great the medical care is blaa blaa blaa. They hook them before the kids even have time to think about it and if the kids try to back out later they get threatened with jail and bullied by recruiters."

It's true, some of our kids have been brainwashed by even more of 'those who have been put in charge of carrying out the agenda of the elite'. And that's where parental responsibility must come into play. We must teach our children well!

-
"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

I suggest that we name NAMES,

I suggest that we name NAMES, but not of the underlings who commited the murders.

But this confirms exactly what I am saying: It means that those who actually commit the murders are never held to account. It means that the actual act of murder is subsidized and pardoned, because we only attach the crime to the King.

We will never see change if this is the approach. Never.

The stigma must be attached to the act itself, no matter how difficult and uncomfortable that is.

Otherwise, change is a pipe dream.

Your point is not confirmed by my statement.

And you have only addressed part of my statement.

If, as you say, "Language is important; and if we begin to apply adjectives properly, it would go a long way to discouraging participation in the State's murderous endeavors", then why are you not addressing the guilt of those who have been put in charge of carrying out the agenda of the elite', those who are acting for Obama; those who gave the actual orders to kill? To me, THEY are responsible for the actions of the underlings they have ordered to commit the murders. Those brainwashed underlings are only following orders.

As I stated above, that's where parental responsibility must come into play. We must teach our children well! We must teach them to stay out of the military in the first place, and why.

You said, "I think if we call Obama a murderer, but hesitate in applying that term properly to those who actually commit the act for which we want to hold Obama to account, we are not addressing the problem honestly. This will only further enable the societal slide into oblivion."

If we followed YOUR argument to its logical conclusion, then it would be the parents' fault the orders to murder were carried out.

-
"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

Problem Is

they allow recruiters to go to schools and hype how great the benefits are to a bunch of kids that have been brainwashed into thinking that they MUST go to college to be able to make a living. They tell them how they can go to school for free, how great it is to serve your country, how great the medical care is blaa blaa blaa. They hook them before the kids even have time to think about it and if the kids try to back out later they get threatened with jail and bullied by recruiters.

skippy

I agree. I don't think it is

I agree.

I don't think it is as simple as saying, "So-and-so is guilty."

But if Obama is called a murderer, on the one hand, we surely cannot think that those who are actually committing the act of murder on his behalf cannot be held to account.

Language is important; and if we begin to apply adjectives properly, it would go a long way to discouraging participation in the State's murderous endeavors.

You're right...

He is an aggressive psychopath doing exactly what his nature requires of him in the most efficient and convenient way he can find.

And 99.9% of the people around you have the same nature and are doing the same thing.

You are surrounded.

additional comments

We really need to understand that we are living through something like the rise of the Third Reich in Germany, except perhaps in a somewhat slower fashion.

What would you do if you were living next door to an extermination camp in Germany? No one questions it, but it's going on---people who have done nothing wrong are having their lives destroyed---and you are essentially alone in your opposition. All of the society around you, thinks nothing can be done because the underlying societal foundation of aggression is essentially sound. No one questions the violent control and suppression of peaceful individuals who want to be different. What do you do?

From Randy Weaver to Irwin Shiff to Darren Huff to Schaeffer Cox, these people didn't hurt anyone, but essentially because of their speech and thought they were put in cages and endured what is clearly an effort to break their minds. And it can be said that these people essentially put their lives on the line on behalf of the liberty of others. They can be easily compared to a communist or gypsy in Germany who was rounded up by their totalitarian state. When do we recognize ours?

When do we really compare Obama to Hitler? You know Hitler probably didn't actually kill many (any?) people firsthand either.

I can't express how disgusted I am with people telling me that "it can't happen here" because "it already happened before." It's happening. The only question is what to do about it.

Well said, farmer. I

Well said, farmer. I agree.

It is in this vein that I originated this post. I think if we call Obama a murderer, but hesitate in applying that term properly to those who actually commit the act for which we want to hold Obama to account, we are not addressing the problem honestly. This will only further enable the societal slide into oblivion.

Not sure why so many downvotes...

...I think you make a profound point. If every person living in our country decided that they no longer wanted to participate in drone attacks, they would stop, no matter what the President says. The problem is many of us have lost a sense of personal responsibility and it is easier to blame the President or Congress for many of the problems in our lives. The point you make is a tough one to accept, but if every single American understood things the way you do, we would see some serious progress.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."-Samuel Adams
http://brushfiresinthemind.blogspot.com/

Thank you!

Thank you!

Good post

Due to soldier worship indoctrination, it takes a lot of courage to post something like this. I'm sorry to see all the downvotes...I get the feeling sometimes people just read and judge the title without reading the entire post. "Kings" can't carry out any of their mass thefts and attrocities without millions of people who are willing to blindly follow orders (that includes soldiers, police, IRS agents, TSA employees, and all "taxpaying, law-abiding citizens" who obey every ridiculous law and pay all the thousands of taxes and fees without protest). If people stopped blindly obeying, "Kings" would be figuratively neutered.

Thanks Missy!

Thanks Missy!

Hitler didn't personally kill

millions of people either - should he be held responsible?
How about Mao and Stalin?

Please let me know what is I

Please let me know what it is I said that you think you're contradicting.

Cheers,

Even after your edit to not down vote you,

I down voted. You know why? Because you can edit the original message. Still sounds like your defending Obama to me when I read it over and over.

Just change your message to this: Yeah, Obama gives the orders, but the troops behind the joystick should say no. They're both guilty.

There ya go. If you don't want to change your original message, then get ready to go deeper into the negative.

Lima-1, out.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Obama Didn't Kill

Psychobabble.

“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

What an eloquent

What an eloquent response.

Presumably, psychobabble wouldn't merit any response at all.

tasmlab's picture

UPvoted, agreed, but

Let's not BHO, the other thousands in the chain of command, nor the trigger-pulling troop off the hook.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

"Place the stigma and the

"Place the stigma and the responsibility on the individuals committing the acts, and you will see change like never before.

Insulate and pardon them by blaming the King and you will merely get a new King."

This is truly one of the greatest quotes I have ever read on the Daily Paul in my almost 6-years of being here. You summarize in that one quote what other move verbose individuals (such as myself) use paragrahps to say.

Anyone who has been here long enough will probably expect and understand the downvotes, as most of the DP are constitutionalists and minarchists at best. But if even a small fraction of them begin to grasp your point it will be a massive step in the right direction.

I'm almost positive you're familar with Larken Rose and specifically his book "The Most Dangerous Superstition", but if not he's someone you'd probably enjoy and agree with. His whole point is that this is an ideological battle and it's lost on an epistomological front. In short: The future success of Voluntaryism (or libertarianism, or anarchism, or whatever you want to call it) doesn't hinge on what we *should* do to kill the state. It's not a matter of us getting all the other munchkins together to kill the wicked witch and then the spell is broken. It's about getting our fellow munchkins to realize that she's a witch in the first place. The witch isn't just Obama. In fact, the witch isn't even a person. Nor is it even a collection of people like "the state" or whatever. The witch is the false belief that there are ANY justifications for initiating aggression against peaceful people. And this isn't just an evil that resides in Washington D.C.

There is NO excuse for aggressing against peaceful people. And this even applies to soldiers who are "just following orders". We'll be on our way to winning when we stop giving them a free pass. And, to be fair when we stop giving ANYONE a free pass for aggression... not people who "mean well", not people who "are just following shitty orders", not anybody.

Initiating aggression is bad. period. everything else follows from that.

Thanks Evan. Ironically, I

Thanks Evan. Ironically, I had actually written quite a verbose piece myself before erasing it all in favor of what ended up as the OP. Got too wordy, and I thought to myself: "This can be summarized far more succintly." And that was that.

Indeed, it didn't take with the crowd at large here, for many reasons; most prominently, due to poor reading comprehension (i.e. they thought I was defending Obama), as well as a visceral and emotional defense of soldiers at large, as you observed.

In any case, I am indeed familiar with Larken Rose. I've not read his work at length, but what little I have read and heard from him has been impressive through and through. He has a talent for conveying complex arguments in simple -- and more importantly, accurate -- terms. He makes the folly of authoritarianism obvious, in whatever form it may be presented.

Thanks for your feedback here. First negative-voted post for me, and although I don't rely on moral support on the internet, it is most definitely fully appreciated when it comes.

Cheers,

Charles Manson didn`t kill anyone neither did Hitler.

.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell

That's correct. So they are

That's correct. So they are not murderers, in a literal sense. They are organizors; conspirators; directors of murder, etc.

The term murderer, in its literal form, should be applied to those who committed the act.

Nowhere in my words can it be inferred that these people, though they did not commit the act, should not also be held responsible legally for their complicity in the act.

In fact, I disclaimed that charge explicitly in the edit of my post before you responded. So I'm not quite sure why you found it relevant to even add this reply.

actually you are right. if i

actually you are right. if i tell someone to kill someone and they do it, its not me who did the killing its the person that did it. obama is not god. no one has to follow his orders. its the sheep who think that they must do whatever he says who are the problem. people are responsible for the actions that they commit.

pgrady
f___ all forms of govt.

Thanks for adding, pgrady.

Thanks for adding, pgrady.

Culpablility!

cul·pa·ble
Adjective
Deserving blame.

Conspiracy has been defined in the US as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions.
For example, planning to rob a bank (an illegal act) to raise money for charity (a legal end) remains a criminal conspiracy because the parties agreed to use illegal means to accomplish the end goal. A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime. One legal dictionary, law.com, provides this useful example on the application of conspiracy law to an everyday sales transaction tainted by corruption. It shows how the law can handle both the criminal and the civil need for justice.

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Don't know why there are so many down votes..

Jay you are probably correct. I doubt Obama has physically controlled a drone to bomb another person. The one who ultimately pulls the trigger is the one that kills. It's a more collectivist ideology to believe that someone who takes action is incapable of deciding what to do because of the circumstances.

For example:
-Smokers deserve compensation from Hollywood producers that make smoking look cool and also from tobacco makers for their ads.
-Killers deserve compensation for bad parenting
-Consumers deserve compensation for hypnotic ads from big bad corporations.
-Fat people deserve compensation from the incessant advertising from restaurants and food producers
-Ron Paul 'killed' his employee because he didn't provide healthcare
-Helpless poor people die because libertarians don't pay their fair share of taxes.

Etc etc etc...
I'm upvoting your thread because you point out a VERY IMPORTANT principle.. I'm very surprised about the DP response on this one. I assume it's just the gut reaction to the title though.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Thanks! Collectivist language

Thanks!

Collectivist language is effectively propaganda, and has a distorting effect on the context in which we consider things. I figured this would be an easy enough concept to grasp and discuss as it relates to Obama and murder, but apparently not.